2007 (3) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the respondent availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,86,292/- in their RG-23A Part-II vide entry dated 20-1-2001. The -Central Excise officer visited the factory premises of the respondent on 20-1-2001 and it was noticed that the respondent availed credit on damaged inputs. It is revealed from the show cause notice that they have reversed the credit on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty and therefore, extended period of limitation is applicable herein. He relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429. 4. The learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that on 20-1-2001, the Central Excise officers noticed the availment of Cenvat credit on damaged inputs and respondent immediately....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit on damaged inputs. The respondent did not dispute the reversal of credit at any point of time. The show cause notice dated 22-8-2003 was issued proposing to adjust/appropriate the amount of credit already reversed by them by way of demand of duty and imposition of penalty and interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty as already recovered by them and imposed penalty ....